Top 10 Most Inaccurate Historical Films

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

The Mike

In the Pixels
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
30,607
Reaction score
83
From Yahoo! Movies:

We all accept that movies stretch the truth in the interest of building drama. The following ten flicks, however, treat the truth like it was Silly Putty -- pulling and twisting it until it's unrecognizable.

10,000 B.C.
Director Roland Emmerich is usually a stickler for realism (see: sending a computer virus via Macintosh to aliens in Independence Day). So we hate to inform him that woolly mammoths were not, in fact, used to build pyramids. Heck, woolly mammoths weren't even found in the desert. They wouldn't need to be woolly if that were the case. And there weren't any pyramids in Egypt until 2,500 B.C or so.

Gladiator
Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub.

300
Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos.

The Last Samurai
The Japanese in the late 19th century did hire foreign advisers to modernize their army, but they were mostly French, not American. Ken Watanabe's character was based on the real Saigo Takamori who committed ritual suicide, or "seppuku," in defeat rather than in a volley of Gatling gun fire. Also, it's doubtful that a 40-something alcoholic Civil War vet, even one with great hair, would master the chopsticks much less the samurai sword.

Apocalypto
This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migranes. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from the infected Spanish pigs.

Memoirs of a Geisha
The geisha coming-of-age, called "mizuage," was really more of a makeover, where she changed her hairstyle and clothes. It didn't involve her getting... intimate with a client. In the climatic scene where Sayuri wows Gion patrons with her dancing prowess, her routine - which involves some platforms shoes, fake snow, and a strobe light - seems more like a Studio 54 drag show that anything in pre-war Kyoto.

Braveheart
Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age
In 1585, when the movie takes place, Queen Elizabeth was 52 years old - Cate Blanchett was 36 when she shot the film - and was not being courted by suitors like Ivan the Terrible (who was dead by then). And though the movie has her rallying the troops at Tilbury astride a white steed in full armor with a sword, in fact she rode side saddle, carrying a baton. She was more of a regal majorette than Joan of Arc.

The Patriot
Revolutionary War figure Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson's character, but he wasn't the forward-thinking family man they show in the flick. He was a slave owner who didn't get married (to his cousin) until after the war was over. Historians also say that he actively persecuted and murdered native Cherokees. Plus, the climatic Battle of Guilford Court House where he vanquishes his British nemesis? In reality, the Americans lost that one.

2001: A Space Odyssey
According to this film, in year 2001 we would have had manned voyages to Jupiter, a battle of wits with a sentient computer, and a quantum leap in human evolution. Instead we got the Mir Space Station falling from the sky, Windows XP, and Freddy Got Fingered. Apparently the lesson here is that sometimes it's better when the movies get the facts all wrong.

Thoughts?
 
"Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson's character".

Kind of stretching there, Yahoo. Had he actually played Francis Marion, they might have a point.

Still, does anyone really regard the films mentioned as anything more than simple entertainments? The only one that stands out (to me) as a film that had aspirations beyond telling an interesting story was Braveheart. Seems to me that Gibson and company really wanted to shed some light on Wallace; A man not nearly as well-known in other parts of the world as he is in his native land.

300? 10,000 B.C.? If anyone out there is honestly looking to these movies to learn something about history, then they deserve to be grossly misinformed.

Cute read though. :)
 
I know the inaccurate and all but i still like to watch them and enjoy them. If some of these were accurate they would be dull and then who would go watch them.
 
I loved this:

Braveheart
Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.

He was a pedophile whose seed possessed one hell of an incubation period.
:lol:lol:lol
 
Why'd they include 2001? Seems out of place with the rest of their list. 2001's prediction of the future is inaccurate, but the rest of the list is guilty of inaccurately presenting the past. Doesn't fit in with the other movies.
 
Who thought the Spanish arriving in the end of Apocalypto were portrayed as saviors? I was thinking, oh crap... there goes the neighborhood :lol

Funny read, from people with too much time on their hands to worry about things like this :lol
 
A fun review from my friend who is a Greek Historian:

"I wasn't impressed; I didn't get it. I know it was based on Frank Miller's graphic novel and not actual history. But he got the idea from history, so ultimately it's still an historical abortion. The Lakedaimonians were perhaps history's first truly elite core of professional fighting men. Their memories deserve better. They were not shaved down, greased up, squat to piss, bed wetting gashes dressed in little swim trunks like Mexican wrestlers. The five ephors weren't freaks. Leonidas, being steeped in the tradition of andragathia, wouldn't constantly scream like a drunken Welshmen with menstrual cramps. No Spartiate would cry like a b@#ch if his son died in battle, but be proud that he fathered a boy that could so bravely serve the state.

The Peers wore bronze muscle cuirasses, bronze greaves, knee to neck shields, long braided hair, and full beards without moustaches. They would go into battle fully protected, not bare chested, sporting their greased abs and tans like a bunch of perfumed, sun bathing catemites. But +++++ the right way, ol' Frank Miller didn't want to spoil the view for the loyal queer as folk crowd in his audience.

Leonidas gives this big speech about the men combining in the phalanx, but then the ******* director has them fight singly. Xerxes was a 32 year old, Indo-Aryan white man with long hair and a full red beard, not some big, bald, bejeweled, Vin Diesel-looking gay bath house attendant. No commander, no matter how incompetent would be so brainless as to launch a cavalry charge against a massed body of heavily armored infantry in a pass. There were no rhinos or monocular giants at Thermopylae and no, the Athanatoi didn't look like Star Wars troopers. If you want action, show the real way the battle went down: ferocious, armored heroes trained to a pinnacle of physical perfection who move as one with iron discipline, free men forged into an unstoppable bronze juggernaut; fiery eyes adamantine with iron resolve peering eerily through the recesses in their helms, their locked shields crashing like rolling thunder against the yielding bodies of the effete slave soldiers of the east; pushing, striving, fighting and dying in unbreakable resolve, treading ankle deep through a thick soup of the ripped entrails and crushed bodies of the fallen long-haired Mede...

In short, Frank Miller movies blow. I watched the special features section of the 300 DVD twice to have an indelible picture of that motherf#@ker's face burned into my brain to forever focus my hatred. He knows nothing about history, tactics or the deployment of the hoplite on an ancient battlefield. He has maligned the memory of brave and noble men, and made a joke out of the first bit of history I learned. He should be tied to an oar on a 16th century Turkish galley.... Anyway, if someone ever wanted dialogue to give some military history fanatic barely teetering on the verge of sanity, there it is."
 
Bum, bum, bum BA BUM, bumbumbumbumbumbumbumbum. *sigh* It loses the significance when it has to be typed...

Supposedly I'm related to William Wallace.

I have nothing more to add to this thread. :rip
 
Who thought the Spanish arriving in the end of Apocalypto were portrayed as saviors? I was thinking, oh crap... there goes the neighborhood :lol

Funny read, from people with too much time on their hands to worry about things like this :lol

I thought the same thing when I first saw it. :lol But it's still a great movie.
No one should expect a movie to be historically accurate, if you want history, watch a documentary, if you want entertainment watch a movie.
 
Unless the movie claims to be historically accurate, I don't see a problem. They'd be pretty boring otherwise; of course Hollywood is going to change it up to make it more interesting.
 
A fun review from my friend who is a Greek Historian:

"I wasn't impressed; I didn't get it. I know it was based on Frank Miller's graphic novel and not actual history. But he got the idea from history, so ultimately it's still an historical abortion. The Lakedaimonians were perhaps history's first truly elite core of professional fighting men. Their memories deserve better. They were not shaved down, greased up, squat to piss, bed wetting gashes dressed in little swim trunks like Mexican wrestlers. The five ephors weren't freaks. Leonidas, being steeped in the tradition of andragathia, wouldn't constantly scream like a drunken Welshmen with menstrual cramps. No Spartiate would cry like a b@#ch if his son died in battle, but be proud that he fathered a boy that could so bravely serve the state.

The Peers wore bronze muscle cuirasses, bronze greaves, knee to neck shields, long braided hair, and full beards without moustaches. They would go into battle fully protected, not bare chested, sporting their greased abs and tans like a bunch of perfumed, sun bathing catemites. But +++++ the right way, ol' Frank Miller didn't want to spoil the view for the loyal queer as folk crowd in his audience.

Leonidas gives this big speech about the men combining in the phalanx, but then the ******* director has them fight singly. Xerxes was a 32 year old, Indo-Aryan white man with long hair and a full red beard, not some big, bald, bejeweled, Vin Diesel-looking gay bath house attendant. No commander, no matter how incompetent would be so brainless as to launch a cavalry charge against a massed body of heavily armored infantry in a pass. There were no rhinos or monocular giants at Thermopylae and no, the Athanatoi didn't look like Star Wars troopers. If you want action, show the real way the battle went down: ferocious, armored heroes trained to a pinnacle of physical perfection who move as one with iron discipline, free men forged into an unstoppable bronze juggernaut; fiery eyes adamantine with iron resolve peering eerily through the recesses in their helms, their locked shields crashing like rolling thunder against the yielding bodies of the effete slave soldiers of the east; pushing, striving, fighting and dying in unbreakable resolve, treading ankle deep through a thick soup of the ripped entrails and crushed bodies of the fallen long-haired Mede...

In short, Frank Miller movies blow. I watched the special features section of the 300 DVD twice to have an indelible picture of that motherf#@ker's face burned into my brain to forever focus my hatred. He knows nothing about history, tactics or the deployment of the hoplite on an ancient battlefield. He has maligned the memory of brave and noble men, and made a joke out of the first bit of history I learned. He should be tied to an oar on a 16th century Turkish galley.... Anyway, if someone ever wanted dialogue to give some military history fanatic barely teetering on the verge of sanity, there it is."

:lol Great review. Everything he said about FM is just about how I feel for him.

As for the movies listed, I don't see any surprises. But then again, it's Hollywood so the majority of historical movies are pretty inaccurate.
 
You can't really put 10KBC in with Braveheart and Gladiator. At least those 2 gave you a sense of the period. Many of the criticisms are petty and pointless. 300 is a fantasy based on a more myth than history incident and has no real bearing on the actual period depicted. Same with 10KBC.
 
I cant believe they didnt mention Highlander. We all know that Sean Connery is not Egyptian.
 
seems like "the passion" or "troy" could of made this list instead of 2001.

it also seems the author may have something against mel gibson(3 of the 10 were his movies).
 
Back
Top